"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."
-- Paul Johnson

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

My friends, I have little to add to the gathering storm centred upon the leaked emails from the CRU, other than to say that watching the enviromentalists squirm in the corrupt mess of their own making is quite compelling.

However, given the lack of detailed coverage by the mainstream media (credit where credit is due, Fox News and the BBC have both covered it), I though this quick quiz will help you all work out what's been going on:

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

My friends, remember those Watermelon environmentalists - green on the surface but red when you delve deeper? You know, the one's wanting to use green politics as a means to a socialist end? Well they've a new recruit.

So what has her journey been, the route she travelled to reach her Green destination? In her own words ("Why I turned from red to Green", The Guardian, Wednesday 18th November 2009):

The communist states of the 20th century did for socialism. I was a dynastic communist – my parents were British Bolsheviks, they were good citizens, and became better when Khrushchev gave permission to criticise Stalinism. All that crashed with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. They could not relinquish the Soviet Union, and thereafter our family rows were on the terrain of Russia. The worst insult my father could hurl was: "You're just a social democrat!"

I remained a communist until 1989, when it was all over. I was part of the anti-Stalinist, Euro-communist wing. We were clever, caused trouble, caught the imagination, but we lost. Or maybe we failed.

But it was feminism that clarified the unsustainability of state communism. Macho, manic productionism relies on force, it valorises conquest of nature and other humans. It marginalises the means of reproduction – how societies sustain themselves, breathe, give birth, grow and rest, clean up; how people take care, give pleasure and co-operate. Barbara Taylor's revelatory book, Eve and the New Jerusalem, published on the crest of women's liberation, told the story of industrialisation and socialist politics, utopianism and the co-operative movement. And it tells the story of these radical movements' defeat – by working men organised in their own interests as men.

The sexism – and destructiveness – of modernity was not evolutionary, it was a bitter political struggle. The outcome: men's movements masquerading as egalitarian and socialist.

Green ideology represents the reconciliation of production and reproduction – that is what yields sustainability.

So in fact there's been no journey, it's merely that Green politics offer her the same way to achieve what she always wanted to achieve via her "dynastic communism".

“With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens – a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

Monday, 16 November 2009

Not the sort of thing you expect to see when you're settling down with your popcorn and barrel of Coke at the cinema, but a welcome addition to political discourse in an election season nonetheless. Perhaps this is a sign that mainstream Euroscepticism is finally being accepted as a reasonable and moderate stance? Even the pro-Euro BBC is willing to discuss Divorcing Europe now!

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges. (The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.)"

Cornelius Tacitus - (55-117 A.D.)Senator and a historian of the Roman Empire.Source: Annales (1st century A.D.)Worth bearing in mind when one considers the plethora of new laws enacted by the New Labour government since 1997.

"It used to be the boast of free men that, so long as they kept within the bounds of the known law, there was no need to ask anybody's permission or to obey anybody's orders. It is doubtful whether any of us can make this claim today."

Well now the precedent has been set for politicians on the programme, with former House Majority Leader, Republican firebrand Tom "The Hammer" DeLay. If our Parliamentarians can be this good it would be worth watching:

Wednesday, 23 September 2009

"The principle of free speech is no new doctrine born of the Constitution of the United States. It is a heritage of English-speaking peoples, which has been won by incalculable sacrifice, and which they must preserve so long as they hope to live as free men."

Robert M. Lafollette, Sr. - (1855-1925)American politician who served as the 20th Governor of Wisconsin (1901–1906) and Republican Senator from Wisconsin (1906–1925), ran for President of the United States as the nominee of his own Progressive Party in 1924

Tuesday, 22 September 2009

"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

Monday, 21 September 2009

My friends, there's a great profile of P.J. O'Rourke in a recent edition of The Daily Telegraph. In it he identifies correctly the priggish nature of the Left, even when they are trying to be funny:

...he criticises the smugness and self-importance that he feels has crept into some political satire – not surprisingly, a trait he sees more on the Left than on the Right. “It does not do for a political humourist to be smug. We’re not offering policy alternatives; we’re pointing out political absurdities. We’re the ones switching on the kitchen lights and watching the cockroaches scamper. But we’re not going in there to stamp on them. That shouldn’t be our role.”

...he opts for an observation he made in 1993 that is enjoying a new lease of life today: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free,” he famously opined at a gala dinner for the libertarian Cato Institute as the then First Lady Hillary Clinton pursued her doomed efforts to reform the health care system.

“It’s very flattering to invent a catchphrase that sticks around and hear those words being quoted again,” he says, 16 years later. “They probably stand up to analysis and time because they’re true.”

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

Thursday, 10 September 2009

"English character and English freedom depend comparatively little on the form which the Constitution assumes at Westminster. A centralised democracy may be as tyrannical as an absolute monarch; and if the vigour of the nation is to continue unimpaired, each individual, each family, each district, must preserve as far as possible its independence, its self-completeness, its powers and its privilege to manage its own affairs and think its own thoughts."

My friends, the odious Nick Griffin and his fellow sub-moronic racist socialists in the British National Party have managed to upset someone who I wouldn't want to see get angry with me, the British SAS hero turned author, Andy McNab.

Nothing British (the conservative anti-BNP site) is reporting that Griffin and his brethren are attempting to hijack some goodwill aimed at the superb Help for Heroes charity by holding an auction for signed copies of two of McNab's best-sellers. McNab's response is most welcome, demanding his books back:

“When someone called me to say that the BNP was using one of my books in a publicity stunt, I was sick to the stomach.

“I served with men of all colours and from many nationalities. They were all equal to me. That’s what the army teaches you. Nick Griffin thinks differently. He thinks the British Army should be for whites-only. He thinks heroes like Johnson Beharry, our only living VC, should be sent back to Grenada.

“He doesn’t understand that what makes the British Army great, and what makes this country great. It’s the way we draw together people from all around the world and give them ideals worth believing in: tolerance, fairness, decency, looking out for the little guy.

“It’s the British way of doing things.

“That’s why I’ve asked for my books back. Because I don’t want anything to help the BNP promote their poisonous politics of segregation and hatred.”

Here's a tip, Griffin, give them up - don't make him come and take them...

Wednesday, 9 September 2009

"When a government controls both the economic power of individuals and the coercive power of the state...this violates a fundamental rule of happy living: Never let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people."

P. J. O'Rourke - (born November 14 1947)US humorist, journalist, and political commentator

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

News reaches us direct from Hamas itself that a plot to "corrupt the young" of the Gaza Strip has been uncovered. That's right, the aggressive oppressors have been exporting chewing gum laced with an aphrodisiac into the region - chewing gum laced with an aphrodisiac!

"We have discovered two types of stimulants that were introduced into the Gaza trip from Israeli border crossings," a Hamas police spokesman told the French news agency [AFP]. "The first type is presented in the form of chewing gum and the second in the form of drops."

According to the report, the coastal territory's Hamas rulers claim to have detained several members of a gang involved in the import over the last two years who "admitted during the investigation they were linked to the Zionist intelligence services."

So far the Israeli Defence Forces have refused to comment on the allegations, no doubt shamed by the nature of the plot uncovered by the doughty torturers, er..., interrogators of the Hamas police force. That most taciturn of communicators, nobody from the IDF has been willing to come forward to apologise for their shameless conspiracy, though an anonymous source has broken ranks to be the sole whistleblower:

...one army source was quoted by AFP as calling the story "absurd."

It surely can't be long before the brave crusaders for truth at Press TV pick up on this?

Ladies and gentlemen I present the Dutch writer, Joanie de Rijke, serious journalist for the Nuts and Zoo Flemish equivalent P Magazine.

In November 2008 de Rijke, was abducted by Afghan Taliban fighters. She was held captive, raped repeatedly, and released after six days for a ransom of 100,000 euros ($137,000). You'd think that would make you a little bitter, wouldn't it? Not for her though:

"We have checked with the designer who confirmed the image was inspired by Lenin. Nonetheless, if even one customer is offended or upset we are happy to withdraw the range."

The decision to withdraw the goods is the correct one, but why would it have been acceptable in Next's eyes to portray Lenin, one of history's greatest villains?

Lenin is continually portrayed by Communist apologists and their allied historical revisionists as the 'Good Red' whose ideas were later corrupted by Stalin. Lenin was, in fact, the father of 'Red Terror', the state system resulting in the death of some 40 million Soviet citizens from 1922-1953. He was amongst the very worst of the many left wing intellectuals with blood on their hands who brought untold suffering to the 20th century.

He talks of the genuine fury of the electorate aimed at the political system in the United Kingdom and then asks “how that fury must be channeled if a political system atrophied into incompetence, low-level corruption and the highest of farce is to be salvaged and rebuilt”.

He goes on:

“Only in moments of chaotic flux, when the foetid accommodations and stifling conventions of the age are suspended because the status quo looks scarier than radical change, does a glimpse of a less imperfect country feel like more than utopian dreaming. Such openings come seldom, vanish swiftly, and must be seized immediately.

“This one may well not be. More than likely we will, until the June elections divert the spotlight, fixate on all the expenses debacle without questioning the underlying culture that generated it, and how that might be ended.

“If so – if this golden opportunity is wasted – it will be a historic tragedy for this country. For the fiddling, as shameful as it's been, is not the disease but one of its more trivial symptoms. It is to a democratic sickness that remains largely undiagnosed what a bout of violent diarrhoea can be to colonic cancer. Mask it with over-the-counter medication though you may, more serious symptoms will soon enough emerge. The longer you ignore those, the more brutal the treatment required, and the lower the chances of recovery.

“The illness in question is malignant in the extreme, and the only effective treatment is a written constitution. Since David Cameron will shortly be Prime Minister, it is to him we must turn on bended knee, begging that he acts while the rage is still hot and the desire for change intense, and makes a binding commitment to that constitution. He should pledge that, within an hour of kissing the Queen's hand, he will inaugurate a year-long national debate about how we want that constitution to look, involving the town-hall meetings and an appeal for public proposals with which we can reacquaint ourselves with the notion that our stake in how we are governed extends beyond voting with distaste every four or five years.

“A committee of respected parliamentarians (there are a few) and distinguished outsiders – scientists, jurists, academics, trade unionists, soldiers, artists, and so on; even national treasures such as Mr Fry – should be co-opted to filter out the most promising ideas, and hand them to the Commons for a series of free votes. Those approved should then be given to a group of our finest writers, to be translated into a document as simple, elegant and enduring as the US Constitution revered almost as a deity to this day.”

Up to this point I agree with him. Previously I had always maintained the opinion that a modern written constitution, devised to replace the uncodified one under which the United Kingdom currently operates, was a particularly un-British idea on several levels, not least of which was the risk that writing one would inevitably descend to politically correct platidunising (see the proposed new European Constitution for evidence of that). The overarching objection came from the classic conservative principle of Viscount Falkland:

“Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."

Now, sad to say, it has become necessary to change. As with the great nineteenth century Tory reformers such as Disraeli and Peel, the current leader of the Party must now become a radical in defence of the kingdom. I trust, I hope not naively, that David Cameron will not be seduced by modern moralising in creating a written constitution for the United Kingdom, but will instead be inspired by the simplicity of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr Norman gives some examples of elements he would like to see:

“Several of the most compelling requirements race to mind. Electoral reform is one. The madness that the votes of little more a third of the actual electorate, and a fifth of the potential electorate, produce almost unlimited political power while disenfranchising the majority must end. Fixed-term parliaments are a no-brainer. So is a clause guaranteeing freedom of speech.

“The soul-sapping spectacle of MPs trooping pliantly through the lobbies to vote for things in which they don't believe or actively disbelieve, or even of which they are blissfully ignorant, must stop. They continually assure us how incredibly hard they work, but being lobby fodder isn't work at all. It's a cushy version of house arrest.

“The constitutional function of a backbench MP is not to rubber-stamp the leadership's will, but to act as a check against the power of the executive. A written constitution could enshrine their duty to vote according to conscience and constituents' interests, not the blackmail and bribery of the whips.

“It should elevate the stature of select committees, those snivelling apologies for overseers of government practice and malpractice. If we drastically increased allowances for research staff, and offered additional salary, their members' status would be enhanced to approximately that of a minister of state. They might then resist the threats and lure of ministerial preferment, and do the fearlessly unpartisan job expected.

“There are countless other symptoms that sorely want treating... the lack of an elected upper chamber; the absence of quasi-judicial scrutiny of such outrages as the decision to go to war in Iraq and the security failures that prefaced the 7/7 bombings; the refusal to devolve to local government outside London; the criminally reckless failure to control and de-politicise the police; and many more besides.

“The overall imperative, however, is to treat the sickness itself by reconnecting the populace with its legislature, by restoring the supremacy of the Commons – our only direct link the central governance of Britain – by packing it with the kind of high-minded, talented and independent representatives whom we'd be delighted to pay £100,000 per annum and more."

I differ with him on several of those. I do not share his opinion that some form of proportional representation would improve our constitutional democracy, nor believe the case for fixed-term parliaments is a no-brainer. I suspect he might not share my view that a strong constitution will be a welcome bulwark against ever-closer European Union than the political whim of whichever party controls Parliament at any given time. I do agree with the need for guaranteed free speech, however, and his view of the role of the backbench MP. These are differences of opinion on content, though, and must not detract from the wider arguments for a debate to take place along the lines of the Philadelphia Convention that gave birth to the American document.

Mr Norman concludes:

“We need that written constitution desperately. It is in David Cameron's gift, and his alone, meaningfully to promise one. He should do so at once. This window will close by the day, and may not reopen in our lifetimes.”

My friends, I've tried to find the source of this spoof Columbo script, but I'm afraid I've been unable to. If you know the source please do tell me and I will credit it.

-

"Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, Sir. Um... I know you're busy, and important and stuff. I mean running the county is very important and -- ah -- I hate to bother you Sir. I will only take a minute. Ok Sir?

"See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering Sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.

"Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!

"Oh, sorry Sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island Sir? No? I didn't think so...

"Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be 'Not released' or 'not available'. I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are -- I -- I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.

"Could you please help me find these things Sir?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released

2. Columbia College records -- Not released

3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available

4. Harvard College records -- Not released

5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released

6. Medical records -- Not released

7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available

8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available

9. Law practice client list -- Not released

10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released

11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released

12. Record of your baptism -- Not available

"Oh and one more thing Senator, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me Sir? Oh but, hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, You know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out.

"I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after...

"What's that Mr. President? That who wants to know these things?

"We, the People of the United States of America! You know, the ones that vote."

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

"Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains."

Herbert Hoover - (1874 - 1964)Professional mining engineer, author, United States Secretary of Commerce and the 31st President of the United States

Remember Dan Quayle's comment about speaking Latin in Latin America? Of course you do, I mean it was 20 years ago but people still bleat on about it, even though it's actually a myth invented by lazy journalists.

So what did the Obamessiah do this time? Well, my friends, in a gaffe similar to those above he seems to think Austrians speak...er...Austrian. In response to an Austrian reporter he said this:

“Erm...political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of...erm...I don’t know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing, and, you know, people are, you know, pursuing their interests, and...erm....erm...you know, everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics.”

Maybe, though, I'm being unfair. Like I said in the title, the Obamessiah just doesn't make gaffes, OK? This was no obvious gaffe as it would have been had it emanated from the lips of George Bush, oh no, this was perhaps a "knowing casualism".

So, write to the producers at Question Time by posting on this page and tell them you want Hannan on the panel and not the usual pop singer or comedian they cheapen the discussion with week in week out.

Tuesday, 24 March 2009

My friends, an apology. Yesterday marked the anniversary of one of the greatest speeches in political history and I missed it. So here it is, a day late.

The speech was given by Patrick Henry (29th May 1736 to 6th June 1799), the first and fifth Governor of Virginia famed, along with the two Thomases (Paine and Jefferson) for being amongst the most influential and radical Republican advocates of the American Revolution. He was noted for his denunciations of government corruption and defence of historic rights.

It was given on 23rd March 1775 at St. John's Church in Richmond Virginia, with George Washington in attendance, and is believed to have swung the balance in convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution committing the state's troops to the Revolutionary War.

Upon hearing the speech the crowd is said to have shouted "To arms! To arms!"

It still resonates to this day.

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

“Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

“Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable - and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Well I may be wrong, but I don't seem to remember Chukka decrying these tactics when they were used with disastrous consequences for his own party in Crewe.

Anyone? Anyone? Umunna? Anyone?

Mind you, you needn't fear that this Compass follower - you know, that group offering A Vision for the Democratic Left - is anything less than tough on crime. He is particularly proud of his grandfather's work as a British High Court judge, work in which he "earned a reputation for handing down particularly tough sentences to convicted rapists".

The hang 'em and flog 'em democratic left remains a force with which to be reckoned.

Monday, 16 March 2009

Coming, as it does, from the Center For American Progress you can guess straight away what it's hoping to achieve, nevertheless it's always instructive to see where your views pitch you in the overall political spectrum.

Monday, 9 March 2009

"The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy. ... Roosevelt's policies were very destructive. Roosevelt's policies made the depression longer and worse than it otherwise would have been."

Their goal, according to a post on the PETA website, was to draw a parallel between the KKK and the American Kennel Club. "Obviously it's an uncomfortable comparison," PETA spokesman Michael McGraw told the Associated Press.

But the AKC is trying to create a "master race" when it comes to pure-bred dogs, he added. "It's a very apt comparison."

Way to go PETA! Promote your pro-animal agenda by alienating millions of people who remember the true crimes of the KKK with cheap campaigning stunts and demeaning comparisons. How can it go wrong?

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path."

My friends, there is an interesting piece from the Australian news source, The Age, back in September 2008.

According to them the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network has been urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror, arguing that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.

The idea for a Forest Fire Jihad has been attributed to imprisoned Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Suri who urged terrorists to use sulphuric acid and petrol to start forest fires. Given the current events in Victoria it is worth considering the following passage:

The posting - which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months - says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".

"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."

"The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be "undemocratic". Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval's attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT. And what we must realise is that "democracy" in the diabolical sense (I'm as good as you...) is the finest instrument we could possibly have for extirpating political democracies from the face of the earth."

"I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside," a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. "And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel."

A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.

The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

He continued, later in his address:

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

All very interesting, but here's what I don't get. We now hear that in a meeting with Congressional Republicans on Friday called to discuss the proposed stimulus package, the President warned them about their sources of information by saying:

If we don't get this done we could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town.

So there you have it, a Professor of Constitutional Law becomes President of the United States of America and tells his fellow Americans of the importance of the Constitution, especially at times of crisisno matter what expediency might dictate. He then proceeds totally to ignore any concept of the Separation of Powers riding roughshod over the Constitution's system of "checks and balances" to tell other elected officials how to behave, despite their consciences, constituents and mandates, and ties it to his re-election chances in 2012.

Unmoved by the current tidal wave of hatred directed towards the former President, Hitchens begins:

“…on the last day of his presidency, I want to say why I still do not wish that Al Gore had beaten George W. Bush in 2000 or that John Kerry had emerged the victor in 2004.

“We are never invited to ask ourselves [in Oliver Stone’s W.] what would have happened if the Democrats had been in power that fall. But it might be worth speculating for a second. The Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act, rushed through both Houses by Bill Clinton after the relative pin prick of the Oklahoma City bombing, was correctly described by the American Civil Liberties Union as the worst possible setback for the cause of citizens' rights. Given that precedent and multiplying it for the sake of proportion, I think we can be pretty sure that wiretapping and water-boarding would have become household words, perhaps even more quickly than they did, and that we might even have heard a few more liberal defenses of the practice. I don't know if Gore-Lieberman would have thought of using Guantanamo Bay, but that, of course, raises the interesting question—now to be faced by a new administration—of where exactly you do keep such actually or potentially dangerous customers, especially since you are not supposed to "rendition" them. There would have been a nasty prison somewhere or a lot of prisoners un-taken on the battlefield, you can depend on that.

“We might have avoided the Iraq war, even though both Bill Clinton and Al Gore had repeatedly and publicly said that another and conclusive round with Saddam Hussein was, given his flagrant defiance of all the relevant U.N. resolutions, unavoidably in our future. And the inconvenient downside to avoiding the Iraq intervention is that a choke point of the world economy would still be controlled by a psychopathic crime family that kept a staff of WMD experts on hand and that paid for jihadist suicide bombers around the region. In his farewell interviews, President Bush hasn't been able to find much to say for himself on this point, but I think it's a certainty that historians will not conclude that the removal of Saddam Hussein was something that the international community ought to have postponed any further. (Indeed, if there is a disgrace, it is that previous administrations left the responsibility undischarged.)

“…And the collapse of our financial system has its roots in a long-ago attempt, not disgraceful in and of itself, to put home ownership within reach even of the least affluent. So the old question "compared to what?" does not allow too much glibness.”

The general thrust of the lack of his regret is that nobody can say, hand on heart, things would have been better without Bush. It’s not intended as an actual defence, merely an appeal for honesty when those reviewing his record take it as Gospel truth that the alternatives would have been better. Why does he want such honesty (other than for its own sake)? He concludes:

"Inescapable as it is, "compared to what?" isn't much of a defense. And nor has this column been intended exactly as a defense, either. It's just that there's an element of hubris in all this current hope-mongering and that I am beginning to be a little bit afraid to think of what Wednesday morning will feel like."

Wednesday, 21 January 2009

"In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"'Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].'

"America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

Tuesday, 20 January 2009

So today, my friends, is finally the day that Barack Obama becomes President of the United States of America. It's a time when everyone, even those who opposed his candidacy in favour of John McCain (or, dare I suggest it, Hillary Clinton) should come together and wish him well, not least because of what he represents.

Obama deserves to win because he seems talented, compassionate, and because he offers the hope of rejuvenating the greatest country on earth in the eyes of the rest of us. All those are sufficient reasons for desiring his victory.

And then there is the final, additional reason, the glaring reason, and that is race. Huge numbers of voters, whether they admit it to themselves or not, will hesitate to choose Barack Obama for President because he is black. And then there are millions of white Americans who will undoubtedly vote Obama precisely because he is black, and because he stands for the change and the progress they want to see in their society.

After centuries of friction, prejudice, tension, hatred - you name it, they've had it - America is teetering on the brink of a triumph. If Obama wins, then the United States will have at last come a huge and maybe decisive step closer to achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, of a land where people are judged not on the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.If Obama wins, then black people the world over will be able to see how a gifted man has been able to smash through the ultimate glass ceiling.

If Obama wins, then it will be simply fatuous to claim that there are no black role models in politics or government, because there is no higher role model than the President of the United States.

If Barack Hussein Obama is successful next month, then we could even see the beginning of the end of race-based politics, with all the grievance-culture and special interest groups and political correctness that come with it.

If Obama wins, he will have established that being black is as relevant to your ability to do a hard job as being left-handed or ginger-haired, and he will have re-stablished America's claim to be the last, best hope of Earth.

"It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, by leaving much to free will, even with some loss to the object, than to attempt to make men mere machines and instruments of a political benevolence. The world on the whole will gain by a liberty, without which virtue cannot exist."

"It's no longer a close call: President Bush was right about the surge. According to Michael O'Hanlon and Jason Campbell of the Brookings Institution, the number of Iraqi war dead was 500 in November of 2008, compared with 3,475 in November of 2006. That same month, 69 Americans died in Iraq; in November 2008, 12 did.

"Violence in Anbar province is down more than 90 percent over the past two years, the New York Times reports. Returning to Iraq after long absences, respected journalists Anthony Shadid and Dexter Filkins say they barely recognize the place."

Of course that's not to say that the surge is exclusively responsible for the improvement, nor that it is permanent:

"Al-Qaeda alienated the Sunni tribes; Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army decided to stand down; the United States assassinated key insurgent and militia leaders, all of which mattered as much if not more than the increase in U.S. troops. And the decline in violence isn't necessarily permanent. Iraq watchers warn that communal distrust remains high; if someone strikes a match, civil war could again rage out of control."

However, the crucial point remains, Bush's surge won the day. There are those who would rather not give credit where credit's due, but not the liberal war critic writing in The Post:

"...even if the calm endures, that still doesn't justify the Bush administration's initial decision to go to war, which remains one of the great blunders in American foreign policy history. But if Iraq overall represents a massive stain on Bush's record, his decision to increase America's troop presence in late 2006 now looks like his finest hour. Given the mood in Washington and the country as a whole, it would have been far easier to do the opposite. Politically, Bush took the path of most resistance. He endured an avalanche of scorn, and now he has been vindicated. He was not only right; he was courageous."

So why, then, should the Democrats swallow their pride and accept that Bush was correct in his later actions?

"Doing so would remind Democrats that no one political party, or ideological perspective, has a monopoly on wisdom. That recognition can be the difference between ambition -- which the Obama presidency must exhibit -- and hubris, which it can ill afford.

"Being proven right too many times is dangerous. It breeds intellectual arrogance and complacency. As the Democrats prepare to take over Washington, they should publicly acknowledge that on the surge, they were wrong. That acknowledgment may not do much for Bush's legacy, but it could do wonders for their own."

Incredible. Why, my friends, is he so fussed? Are there really no other restaurants that will employ this man or is he just a troublemaker? And if the latter what's his purpose? Political correctness or just a way to milk Hooters of America for cash via the courts?

Mike McNeil, vice president of marketing for Hooters, hits the nail on the head:

"The good news is that when this happened the last time, Hooters benefitted from an avalanche of positive publicity and public support for keeping Hooters Girls, well, girls. If we lose this go around, you can next expect hairy legged guys in the Rockettes to line up and male models in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. You wonder why people just can't leave good things alone."

"The financing of current government spending by debt is equivalent to an 'eating up' of our national capital value... By financing current public outlay by debt, we are, in effect, chopping up the apple trees for firewood, thereby reducing the yield of the orchard forever.

"...The person who is faced with a tax bill to finance interest charges...will reckon only on the simply observed fact that income that he or she might otherwise use is being taken away in taxes. The result is precisely analagous to the apple orchard example introduced earlier. If the yield of three trees under a person's nominal ownership is committed to debt service, it is fully equivalent to having an orchard with three fewer trees."

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

On the other hand you have the Israeli military who, despite Hamas fighters wearing civilian clothing while fighting Israeli troops and using schools, mosques and crowded residential areas for cover intentionally making it hard to keep ordinary residents out of harm's way, are trying to avoid hitting noncombatants:

Capt. Orr, 25, felt that aborting some of his targets for fear of harming civilians were among his proudest achievements.

"The ones I remember are when I have locked in on a target and I fire and then at the last second I see a child in my cross hairs and I divert the missile," he said. "That leaves a mark."

..."We work very hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible," he said. "Each missile we shoot is pinpointed to the very meter we want it to go."

It's worth reading the whole article, and then thinking about what people mean when they repeat the leftist mantra, "we are all Hamas now".

“In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

“The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.”

He goes on to explain exactly why he holds this position. At some length, including the following passage:

“History will also take Mr Bush's verbal fumbling into account, reminding us that Ronald Reagan also mis-spoke regularly, but was still a fine president. The first MBA president, who had a higher grade-point average at Yale than John Kerry, Mr Bush's supposed lack of intellect will be seen to be a myth once the papers in his Presidential Library in the Southern Methodist University in Dallas are available.

“Films such as Oliver Stone's W, which portray him as a spitting, oafish frat boy who eats with his mouth open and is rude to servants, will be revealed by the diaries and correspondence of those around him to be absurd travesties, of this charming, interesting, beautifully mannered history buff who, were he not the most powerful man in the world, would be a fine person to have as a pal.

“Instead of Al Franken, history will listen to Bob Geldof praising Mr Bush's efforts over AIDS and malaria in Africa; or to Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, who told him last week: "The people of India deeply love you." And certainly to the women of Afghanistan thanking him for saving them from Taliban abuse, degradation and tyranny.”

"I know that the majority are still opposed, but there is a period of consideration underway and the people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it."

That's right, "the people who matter in Britain".

Now we have my good friend Lord Malloch-Brown, the Government appointed British Foreign Office Minister, explaining who are the people who matter in Europe:

"With 24 countries having approved the treaty, I am not sure whether the voters of Ireland should have a right of veto over the aspirations of all the other people of Europe. I am not sure whether that is, or is not democracy."

So there you go Ireland, you fought for and won independence from British rule but it now seems to have been replaced with rule from Brussels.